To me it seems people have very different ideas of what collaborating is. There seems to be a lot of paranoia that it involves someone telling someone else what to do. Then talk of collectivism and hints at communism.

However, as we are volunteers here clearly that isn't the case. Maybe there are methods of working which allows us to get more done while at the same time retaining everyones autonomy?

Yes, the forum has served the community well. The question is can Puppy become accessible to everyday users?

The same question can be asked about Linux in general. How successful is it if its only used on about 1.5% desktops._________________helping Wiki for help

To me it seems people have very different ideas of what collaborating is. There seems to be a lot of paranoia that it involves someone telling someone else what to do. Then talk of collectivism and hints at communism.

We almost need a new word because the word "collaborating" has so much baggage. "Volunteer based development" is perhaps a better term to use.

Quote:

However, as we are volunteers here clearly that isn't the case. Maybe there are methods of working which allows us to get more done while at the same time retaining everyones autonomy?

Scientists seem to have a system that seems to work for this. Folks sort of agree upfront that others are going to aggressively attack every idea they have. With code, we sort of do that when folks look for bugs in each others code. There are some things that I think will help but none of these are software tools they are just things that people should all agree on. Here are a few suggestions:

Some words and terms we should all treat like "protected terms" like the fact that someone who is a doctor can't claim to be a doctor. A classic example is "works on Puppy Linux X.X.X". We should agree that ".. Oh but first you have to install XXX and YYY..." means that it should be said "can be made to work on Puppy Linux X.X.X"

We should agree to "document the heck out of" our code. The basic rule we should use when volunteering to code is the same one as I use for code I do for work purposes. "Assume the guy who has to maintain it is not as smart as you, under a lot of pressure and armed"

Quote:

Yes, the forum has served the community well. The question is can Puppy become accessible to everyday users?

Puppy has already met that standard. I have given puppy Linux to 3 "everyday users" as I tend to define them. The only thing that we need to do is make some signs that say "remember not to double click" and put them along the roadside to be seen by those folks on their way into work and back home. We really should add a "click debounce" to trap and ignore the second click when they are too close together.

Quote:

The same question can be asked about Linux in general. How successful is it if its only used on about 1.5% desktops.

At the bottom of the market, Android and other Linux are the OSes that are getting the most installs. At the supercomputer level, Linux dominates. The gap in the middle is slowly closing. More an more folks no longer have a desktop machine but instead use a tablet or the like.

To me it seems people have very different ideas of what collaborating is. There seems to be a lot of paranoia that it involves someone telling someone else what to do. Then talk of collectivism and hints at communism.

We almost need a new word because the word "collaborating" has so much baggage. "Volunteer based development" is perhaps a better term to use.

No paranoia, it's just that linux is non-commercial, so those with the time and skills to develop are going to do it how and when they choose. I'm not sure where the desire for everyone to use linux comes from.

There are several who express major concerns that an idea of this level of cooperation will not work.

So I ask those PLDF members who see the major obstacles to step back a moment and to share with us, if they will, if they see any way at all for something like this to work on any single project?

If the members I speak of were asked to imagine how this would work, what would they, individually, see as a manner to approach so that a cooperative would work. ("Bear in mind" that NONE of us are equal, so like any team, its a collection of people.)

Please dont run away as you have come to far, now. And give us your idea rather than pointing to something else done by someone else. I would like your creative juices here.

Here to help_________________Get ACTIVE Create Circles; Do those good things which benefit people's needs!
We are all related ... Its time to show that we know this!
3 Different Puppy Search Enginesor use DogPile

There are several who express major concerns that an idea of this level of cooperation will not work.

So I ask those PLDF members who see the major obstacles to step back a moment and to share with us, if they will, if they see any way at all for something like this to work on any single project?

If the members I speak of were asked to imagine how this would work, what would they, individually, see as a manner to approach so that a cooperative would work. ("Bear in mind" that NONE of us are equal, so like any team, its a collection of people.)

Please dont run away as you have come to far, now. And give us your idea rather than pointing to something else done by someone else. I would like your creative juices here.

I dont think anyone is running away... I think we have just decided against the concept and are going back to what we were doing before. Now you ask those of us who see obstacles to stop and step back a moment and think. Well let me return the favor...

Stop and step back... and read what ideas HAVE already been put forward in this thread that have for some reason been completely ignored by the 'collaboration' crowd. It's a perfect path to follow. (quoted below so you dont have to open a new page unless you want to)

p310don wrote:

My solution (if that's the right word) would be to start in the planning stage, identifying what people actually want, and then finding developers who want to create that. To find what people want, a popular / democratic vote seems like a good way to go.

And then after a period of voting / discussion, devise a definition of exactly what the outcomes of the project are.

Then, and only then, find the developers who have an interest in working on individual tasks as part of the greater product. In this model, if a developer can no longer participate for whatever reason, there is a chunk that can be taken over by someone else to continue to original, stated goal.

So how could this work... well here's an idea... it might work if someone gets off their butt and starts doing something. That's not directed at anyone in particlar, but there is always 'talk' about collaboration, or talk about a community release, or talk about trying a new direction. Who is the person who is going to step forward and take that first step to make it happen? For obvious reasons it has to be someone who wants some part of puppy to go in that direction. So one of you pro-collaboration people... take that step. Start the discussion of a new community release or whatever you want to call it. If some part of it is something I'd like to work on, I'll pitch in. If nothing there interests me... I'll quietly work on the projects I already am working on. But I'm not going to commit to working on something without having any idea what that may be.
So follow the great suggestion that was put out already... and start doing something. Stop talking about doing something and actually do it.

Open - Eclipse is open to all; Eclipse provides the same opportunity to all. Everyone participates with the same rules; there are no rules to exclude any potential contributors which include, of course, direct competitors in the marketplace.
Transparent - Project discussions, minutes, deliberations, project plans, plans for new features, and other artifacts are open, public, and easily accessible.
Meritocracy - Eclipse is a meritocracy. The more you contribute the more responsibility you will earn. Leadership roles in Eclipse are also merit-based and earned by peer acclaim.

What appears to be happening here is to determine what would work in this community, given the mindset and talent this community has. And to attempt to define a structure that would be attractive and comfortable. With these ideas engulfed, the next step is to make a step with something that the community can rallye around. We are now at just the ideas stage, but, we are approaching something that might be a launch stage.

This would be a specific PUPPY creation. And, as one can see, it will be pioneering effort, unseen as yet, and on a bit of a larger scale with a larger community of persons using today's technology. as we create something. The intent for this to be a very very easy collective (please no more comments about language nuances or political defamations. We are just trying to envision how to easily work together.) And to see if whether we can envision, model and test.

As has been demonstrated by the contributions in this thread, all are finding this an idea to ponder.

Here to help_________________Get ACTIVE Create Circles; Do those good things which benefit people's needs!
We are all related ... Its time to show that we know this!
3 Different Puppy Search Enginesor use DogPile

What appears to be happening here is to determine what would work in this community, given the mindset and talent this community has.

My point in posting was that linux projects don't require some radical shift in ideology in order to function correctly, as you insinuate. Also, note the statement regarding "meritocracy." People that don't contribute acquire zero status in the pecking order, and virtually all development is achieved by a few individuals, as noted in their project reports.

To me, this looks like a great example of people collaborating from all over the world (using BK Mo Manager, the man's a dynamo) for Puppy good.

Suppose if you were building a Puppy from scratch, one might be best to use some benchmarks of what areas of the OS have been successful in the past, and what needs sorting.

Like combining Uncle Jack and Aunty Alsa and Lord Wineasio into one speaker icon+right click menu on the desktop with a slider for low latency (high cpu use) to high latency (low cpu use). At least that would be three less things that one had to tweak about with. Some kind of streamlined audio subsystem. It's a bit too much like LEGO at the moment (imo).

I should imagine that would be a massive project in itself, and might seem like a waste of time compared to other aspects of Puppy that developers may be more concerned about. (Of which I know not)

Collabs just happen I guess, and hopefully the fruits are kept and the knowledge added to improve on what has gone before.
Not talking about weapons building here tho', purely fun and open source.

gcmartin: your posting style is like a bad group therapy experience, where the leader interprets what he/she thinks (in his/her infinite wisdom) the other group members are doing.

Ya know... at first when I read that my response was 'damn thats harsh'. But then after a few minutes of it rolling around in my head I went back and re-read some of his older posts... now that you mention it... it pretty much is like every group therapy session Ive ever seen in a movie.
Shall we dub GCmartin the PL community group therapist? lol Afterall he does end every post with "here to help".

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forumYou cannot attach files in this forumYou can download files in this forum